What is Digg?Sponsored by Realtor.com
Top 5 most ridiculous properties sold for a single dollar view!
realtor.com - Looking for a deal on your next home? What if you could pay a dollar? What if it was a MLB stadium or a university?!?!?
1016 Comments
- DurtyJ, on 03/25/2008, -34/+715It's only noticeable if it's run through Monster cables.
- richman241, on 03/25/2008, -75/+718I thought it was easy. I noticed a pretty big deterioration in sound quality.
- inactive, on 03/25/2008, -15/+369I wonder if the difference would be more apparent if it were music I'm actually used to hearing
- oOLiquidNightOo, on 03/25/2008, -14/+294I bought a stereo. Wow! Two speakers!
So I'm listening to this thing. And then I heard the quad system with the four speakers, and I said, "This is it, this is great."
So I got rid of the stereo and got the quad, and this was the sound I was looking for.
But I listened to it a couple of days and said, "Hey, this sounds like *****."
So I went out and I got the duodecaphonic with the 12 speakers, and this was more to my liking... for a while.
But the ear gets sophisticated pretty fast and I got rid of that and got the milliphonic with the thousand speakers. And I'm listening to it and I said, "Hey, this sounds like ***** too. The other one was ***** one, this is ***** two."
So finally I got the googolphonic, the highest number of speakers before infinity. Sounds like *****.
So I said, "Hey, maybe it's the needle."
So I had the old typical diamond needle, and I searched around, finally got the moonrock needle. Cost me 3 million bucks for that. So now I have a googolphonic stereo with a moonrock needle.
It's okay for a car stereo. I wouldn't want it in my house.
- Steve Martin - thenumber8, on 03/25/2008, -105/+383for further explanation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU
- ralphthemagi, on 03/25/2008, -5/+203It's going to depend on the song. You have to remember that compression removes certain frequencies. With some songs pretty much anyone can tell the difference, with others it can be damn near impossible.
It also matters on how the CD or song is mastered. Poorly mastered tracks where the volume is enhanced end up with much less perceived quality loss when compressed.
That being said, 320Kbps is overkill for pretty much everything but complex classical scores. And you really need good speakers to drive that. 192-256Kbps is all most tracks need. And that's just for MP3. If you move to something like AAC, now you start to get into the realm where even the most hardcore audiophile can't tell in a blind test. - cstyles1200, on 03/25/2008, -33/+230are you a german shepard by any chance?
- thecheatah, on 03/25/2008, -8/+195It could also be because you are suppose to LISTEN for the difference.
- machocheese34, on 03/25/2008, -7/+191or coat hangers
- edru, on 03/25/2008, -6/+172every ***** time i fall for it... ever single ***** time.
- michaelk2k5, on 03/25/2008, -4/+157If I'm honest, I could tell the difference. Although not enough to get worked up about like some audiophiles.
- inactive, on 03/25/2008, -21/+135I need to hear that with a modern song ,Like a Daft Punk or something.
- johnsmallberies, on 03/25/2008, -8/+115I noticed it also, its pretty obvious if you have decent speakers
- pltnz64, on 03/25/2008, -4/+111I think they should use a song with more range. maybe something with tambourines or bells. i'd also be interested in having a female voice set to a bassy background. i failed this test with a decent pair of headphones.
- no1joel, on 03/25/2008, -26/+129Couldn't see any difference at all. I actually thought the wrong one was a lot better. Maybe wine does that to you
- bossm4n, on 03/25/2008, -7/+108I was shopping with the wife today in Academy and about fell over when this song started playing over the P.A. I was looking for someone dancing around in a trench coat.
- lfernandez91, on 03/25/2008, -9/+103uuiU
- MasterPlayer, on 03/25/2008, -1/+91I told myself while clicking the link "If this is a RickRoll, I'm going to punch this guy in the ***** face." I'll find you man...I'll find you...
- TheSpamSlayer, on 03/25/2008, -24/+102Maybe its my old speakers but I didn't notice much of a sound quality difference. cool though :)
- alexpigment, on 03/25/2008, -2/+76actually, when they provide a sample that contains none of the frequencies that are adversely affected by a bad 128kbps encoding, you really CAN'T tell the difference. this is stupid. put ONE ***** CRASH cymbal or hi-hat from a studio recording and you could actually tell. ***** stupid diggers and their brag session. as an actual expert on audio compression, this page makes me want to punch a baby
- NuclearFalcon, on 03/25/2008, -5/+64It also helps that it is a 50-50 chance.
- MindTrigger, on 03/25/2008, -1/+51It's not hard to hear the artifacts in 128bit MP3s, especially with complex music where there are a lot of different sounds happening at the same time. Rock music with multiple guitars, drums and other things happening simultaneously can sound absolutely horrible on decent speakers or headphones. I've been going through my considerable collection and replacing my older stuff that is 128 because of this.
- RoanokeRich, on 03/25/2008, -2/+51My brother in law has $100 monster cables going to his $20 speakers
- inactive, on 03/25/2008, -1/+49that "test" is all fine and dandy but the sucktitude of 128k mp3's becomes blatantly apparent when you play a rock song with lots of cymbals - the very nature of mp3's dictates that as most high frequency sounds aren't relevant, they dump them. cymbals are of course mostly high frequency sound. it's literally like jpeg artifacts for your music
the other point is that 128k can sound adequate if the person encoding them did it right. most poeple don't. you need a good codec and need to know what all the opitns do, also use high quality encoding as opposed to high speed. etc etc. like encoding quality video, audio is also a fine art. - unearth, on 03/25/2008, -4/+50I guarantee that if people actually started replacing their 128kbps files with 192kbps, they would be blown away by what they are missing.
Someone set up a double blind for me with a familiar song in 192kbps and FLAC, and it was still relatively easy to pick it out. You don't need to be an audiophile to recognize the way things SHOULD sound, especially if you know what it sounds like already.
Not an audiophile, but 128kbps is such a travesty. - inactive, on 03/25/2008, -11/+56Thanks i enjoyed it.
- cw1242, on 03/25/2008, -2/+47Just watch the load time for each file. File A takes longer to load than file B so it must be the larger of the two...and yeah I know thats cheating.
- jenshik, on 03/25/2008, -11/+56The 320 sounded like it had more depth. The difference wasn't huge, but I could hear it slightly.
- z0l0pht, on 03/25/2008, -2/+46Using Nickelback to determine audio quality...
- TotalHalibut, on 03/25/2008, -1/+43You're deaf, or you have TERRIBLE headphones. 33kbps is almost unlistenable.
- jklikesnews, on 03/25/2008, -1/+42Hahahahahahaha nickelback
- DCesque, on 03/25/2008, -6/+46Daft Punk is too chunky and filtered...as awesome as they are, I reckon they would sound the same in 128kps and 320kps. With hi-fidelity full spectrum ***** like Drum&Bass or Dub-step though, you can definitely tell the difference. There's a reason that DJs in clubs use 320kps mp3's bought off of Beatport for $2 a track instead of the $.99 ***** on iTunes.
- 80hd, on 03/25/2008, -2/+40With monster you can even hear the degradation from flac
- Nerys, on 03/25/2008, -2/+38Hmmm this is a question that is improperly asked and presented. Can I hear the difference. Yes is my answer without question. NOW my 128kbps or YOUR 128kbps? Also what kind of music. Listen to some BOND music (the 4 string quartet) the difference between even 160kbps mp3 even 192kbps and the CD is massive if you have heard the CD. If you have never heard the CD ?? depends on your ears. Depends on the Music. Depends on the Encoder. I have listened to some 128kbps that are quite simply painful to listen to and I have listened to 96kbps mp3's that would almost be hard to tell they were compressed that low. There is just too many factors here.
Example a 96kbps mono mp3 has the same technical quality as a a 192kbps Stereo mp3. The 192 track is after all just TWO 96kbps tracks together. Then you have joint stereo etc..
It really comes down to 3 things in this priority order. Listener Ears, Encode Quality, Type and Complexity of Music.
Hard Metal is going to survive heavy compression a lot better than a Full Orchestra really going at it. See what I mean?
In the case of this example I could not really tell a difference (though it was a cheap set of headphones) but I do not think I would have gotten it with good headphones (I guessed and got it wrong I thought they were identical except for the hurumph at the end sounded deeper in B)
My guess it is was VERY well encoded at 128kbps OR the 320 was very POORLY encoded. I would need to hear the CD version. Its very hard to tell MP3 apart until you compare them to the CD. (hence why I like encoding my own stuff and downloads suck for the most part :-) - sparql, on 03/25/2008, -0/+36Stuff like Mastodon sounds horrible at 128k. Sounds like you're listening to it through a tin can.
Really, IMO, anything that uses a lot of cymbals really suffers from low bit-rates. - sarixe, on 03/25/2008, -4/+40i guess i'm a massive douche... i walk by (not in) Ruehl in the mall, and i can tell they're playing mp3's...
- inactive, on 03/25/2008, -6/+42Ah, now I can hear the difference in sound quality.
- tidu, on 03/25/2008, -5/+39I'm lonely
- thtroyer, on 03/25/2008, -1/+35For the most part, yes.
One specific area I notice distortion in lower-bitrate stuff is in the cymbals. Vocals, guitar... I notice no/little difference. - avions, on 03/25/2008, -7/+40I clearly heard the difference on my $30 speakers + sub woofer. I'll admit that when I use headphones I can't tell the difference, but if you've ever hooked your music up to a stereo, you can tell immediately because the 128kbs songs sound kind of flat and not as deep as the 320kbs songs.
- defectDS, on 03/25/2008, -0/+33127.560004 kbps, duh.
- z0l0pht, on 03/25/2008, -1/+33Haha, good catch
http://gizmodo.com/363154/audiophile-deathmatch-mo ... - omjeremy, on 03/25/2008, -2/+33Why?
- TotalHalibut, on 03/25/2008, -3/+33Well thanks for that one Captain Obvious. Next you'll be telling me television producers don't like it when you send them Xvid.
- smacksaw, on 03/25/2008, -2/+32Oh, I thought you were doing a comparison between listening to silence vs listening to suck.
- stutimandal, on 03/25/2008, -17/+46320Kbps Mp3 on a studio-monitor headphone blows away 128kbps mp3. In fact, 192 Kbps blows away 128 kbps FYI. 320kbps or 320kbps variable rate mp3 encoding with LAME is near CD quality. 128 kbps is just two steps ahead of FM radio (64 or 56 kbps).
- omjeremy, on 03/25/2008, -2/+30You're getting dugg down because people don't think you have to be a douchbag to have a problem with 128kbps.
- TheCheeks, on 03/25/2008, -3/+30Exactly, this was a horrible sample song without much range.
- theaceoffire, on 03/25/2008, -7/+34Heh, thanks, I needed that.
- inactive, on 03/25/2008, -34/+61I honestly can't tell the difference. However, I have noticed it before with certain songs, especially ones which have extensive layering.
Still, most songs sound just as good at 128 as 320. I'd rather save the HD space. -
Show 51 - 100 of 1024 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is